On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 6:14:34 AM UTC+1, palsing wrote:


Too bad you remain blind to reality, Gerald. It is not all that difficult to understand that the motion of the inferior planets relative to the Sun is different than their motion against the stars, but you are incapable of that understanding.


There are many inferior things but the inner planets are not among them. The last vestiges of geocentricity are removed by employing the Earth's orbital motion to account for the observation that many stars periodically are lost behind the glare of the central Sun or that the incremental motion of the stars sets up the reference of a central Sun.

Many other things require updating such as the position when an inner planet is furthest from the Sun as seen from a slower moving Earth. That event occurs when a 'quarter' of the planet's surface is illuminated at its widest point from the Sun and at a stationary position before in turns back in front of the Sun -

http://www.popastro.com/images/plane...ary%202012.jpg

At planetary quadrature as a modification of lunar quadrature, the angle is 90° whereas at all other times the angles are acute and obtuse representing waxing or waning gibbous phases of Venus and Mercury.

You have these newbies entering a thread who blow themselves up like suicide bombers while these observations are being developed but such is the small ground for propagating visual insights and proper conclusions.

You follow the logic provided by the inner planets running their circuits and the orbital input supplied by the Earth's orbital motion via the incremental change in position of the stars behind the Sun and all contained in an incredible graphic -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

Few are mentally nimble at this stage to put it all together but that will happen soon enough.